B
Bahman
Guest
You don’t need a person for the point creation. You need a timeless God whose his existence lay at the same point with creation. No need to say that God is timeless anymore after the act of creation.
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
Yet, in order to fully answer the question, it’s necessary to distinguish between ‘divine’ and ‘created’ life. As you’ve pointed out, in a Christian context, God is divine and eternal, and has no beginning. Therefore, there is no one answer that can be given; rather, we can say that divine life is uncreated, and created life (whether material or immaterial) has its origin in God.
OK; so, after a bunch of posts, we’ve gotten to the point that you want to make: a discussion of the putative ‘origin’ of God. We do have an explanation, but it’s this: God is uncreated and has no beginning and no end. That’s the explanation.
Not unless we were asserting that they’re omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent (which we would assert as attributes of God). Unless you’re making a claim about divine beings, you’re just making a claim about created beings, and therefore, we would reject it.
I don’t think I’d call it an avoidance of the question – but rather, telling you ‘mu’ (in a very Pirsig-esque way): re-ask the question, because it can’t be answered intelligibly in the way you’ve phrased it.
Oh… so what you want is a debate on the reasonableness of arguments for one deity over the other?
Again… ‘mu’.
Yes, you’re correct: an eternal entity has no origin. You have correctly defined ‘eternal’. Is that the entirety of the point you wanted to make?
(Perhaps the question I should leave you with is this: why does this notion of an ‘eternal God’ bother you so much? Do you believe it’s necessary for a group of believers to posit a temporal beginning for their deity?)
R
rossum
Guest
Timelessness is not relevant here. Being alive is. A living God cannot be the explanation for the origin of life.
A non-living God could be the explanation, but AIUI the Abrahamic God is a living God, not a non-living God.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
If we assume that your divine life came first, then the question of the origin of life would indeed reduce to the question of the origin of divine life. Since God did not create Himself, then there is still no explanation for the origin of life.
I do not see that as a satisfactory explanation.
No, I am not asserting that. They do not need to be omnipotent, merely powerful enough to create life; other powers are not required. They do not need to be omniscient, merely knowing enough to create life; other knowledge is not required. They do not need to be omnipresent, merely present where they create life; being elsewhere is not required.
You might want to look at the Buddhist approach to change and permanence.
rossum
D
DCNBILL
Guest
How do you understand God as “living?”
W
Wesrock
Guest
God is the origin of life (and not just life, but of all being). His life is uncaused, though. There’s a categofical difference between divine life and our life. Our life/existence is provided by an external source. His life is found in himself. That strikes me as the definition of being an origin, the wellspring of all being.
H
hasantas
Guest
“Hakikat-ul Ashya-u Sâbitun”. That means the essence and presence of materials have a presence out of existence of God. All materials was\is created by God. But the essence of materials is not part of God. All souls and all attributes of soul which is not material(senses just like mind, hearing, feeling, seeing etc) is created by God. non of those sense is part of eternal attributes of God but they are from eternal attributes. The connection between the creator and creatures is the act of creating.
The life of alives come from eternal life of God. But the life on the world is not part of eternal life. So there is no need to say God create himself. God do not create Himself but God manifest through mirrors. Sun and it’s light reflect on the mirrors. The sun itself does not get into mirror. The etrnal life manifest through bodies.
The source of life is not from energy or cosmic rays or waves. The source life of human is the soul. When soul get out of body which we call death then the body dissolve and never get life again. Nothing can animate that body any more. After death it is not use supporting the blood circulation by machine to animate body again. because the source of life is not energy which is deposited into such ATP molecules.
İs Vishnu part of universe or creator of universe?
L
LethalMouse
Guest
I think many have differing concepts, in regard to type of life. I understand that rossum you see God as life in even a spiritual sense requiring creation, but so to would every immaterial thing. If I recall my knowledge of Buddhist proncipals well enough you essentially see an always existing universe. Whereas here we see an always existing God before the universe.
I would like to put my view out in a sense though still imperfect IMO. But I had an idea for a movie that involved the early days of heaven etc. In it it would start with pure “nothingness” although I would be stuck with a blank screen since we can not show true nothing. I think about using a white screen to denote the difference between nothing and space. Anyway, there is not even a perceptable image of God at the point of nothing, He is more like a conciousness and an idea (I don’t knownhow to explain it) but He decides to have creations and from a nonexistent point of nothing spews forth the thunderous Word of God and roars out space time itslef, and then the particle to cause the big bang etc…
Idk that is how I see things when I think of them.
I would like to put my view out in a sense though still imperfect IMO. But I had an idea for a movie that involved the early days of heaven etc. In it it would start with pure “nothingness” although I would be stuck with a blank screen since we can not show true nothing. I think about using a white screen to denote the difference between nothing and space. Anyway, there is not even a perceptable image of God at the point of nothing, He is more like a conciousness and an idea (I don’t knownhow to explain it) but He decides to have creations and from a nonexistent point of nothing spews forth the thunderous Word of God and roars out space time itslef, and then the particle to cause the big bang etc…
Idk that is how I see things when I think of them.
G
Gorgias
Guest
That’s a nice attempt, but if someone were to assert that something created God, then the next question would naturally be, “ok then, who created the creator of God?”. And so on, and so on, and so on…
Aquinas already dealt with the inadequacy of your approach (that is, “who created God?”) by pointing out that the very definition of a ‘God’ must be one who is uncreated. (After all, if a deity is created, then the one who creates him has a certain power over him… and therefore, he cannot be an omnipotent deity.) We assert God as an omnipotent deity, and therefore, it is illogical to assert that He must have a creator (or even a beginning). To be ‘God’, He must be uncreated (or else not be ‘God’ at all). I’m sorry that this answer is unsatisfactory for you… but it’s a logical answer.
Such a being would not be ‘God’, but would only have to be a powerful being. We do not assert a merely powerful being – we assert a God.
S
SilverShadow22
Guest
Non-living god is a contradiction in terms - an oxymoron, rather like your signature.
K
KEP1983
Guest
I see what’s happening. The OP is doing an equivocation fallacy.
txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Equivocation.html
logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/81/Equivocation
He is equivocating on the word “living,” and not making a distinction in the meaning. When we say that created beings are “living,” we mean that they are made up of temporal physical parts that are animated by a soul. When we say that God is “living,” we are saying that He is conscious and aware of His own existence and His Creation. But He is not made up of physical parts. The word “living” has two different meanings here. He’s trying to pass it off as one meaning, thus enacting this fallacy.
Your arguments only works if you were to say that a physical living thing can’t be the origin of physical living things. If you said that, I would agree. But God isn’t a physical living thing.
txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Equivocation.html
logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/81/Equivocation
He is equivocating on the word “living,” and not making a distinction in the meaning. When we say that created beings are “living,” we mean that they are made up of temporal physical parts that are animated by a soul. When we say that God is “living,” we are saying that He is conscious and aware of His own existence and His Creation. But He is not made up of physical parts. The word “living” has two different meanings here. He’s trying to pass it off as one meaning, thus enacting this fallacy.
Your arguments only works if you were to say that a physical living thing can’t be the origin of physical living things. If you said that, I would agree. But God isn’t a physical living thing.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Says who, you?
Are you an atheist? Only if you are an atheist can you argue that no god (never mind the Christian God) could be part of the explanation for the origin of life.
K
KEP1983
Guest
He’s trying to be clever with the word “living.” He’s saying that because God is “living,” He can’t be the origin of “living” things.Says who, you?
Are you an atheist? Only if you are an atheist can you argue that no god (never mind the Christian God) could be part of the explanation for the origin of life.
He’s equivocating on the word “living” though.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
My guess is that there are Christians who believe in abiogenesis.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Especially since abiogenesis requires pre-existing physical matter, and leaves open the question “how did that physical matter itself come into existence?” …
U
Upgrade25
Guest
I still don’t see a clear answer to this one. Trying to brush on my theological debate skills by lurking…
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
This is a metaphor. The abstract concept of pure existence was foreign to Hebrews of the time. God was referred to as living in order to distinguish Him from pagan gods and denote a self-awareness. God is still transcending human conceptual constructs as He did 2500 years ago.
Here is more from the Jewish encyclopedia:
Still, Saadia concedes that no attribute may in strict construction be ascribed to God (ib. ii. 28b). God has also created the concept attribute; and created things can not belong to the essence of the Creator. Man may only predicate God’s existence (“yeshut”).* Biblical expressions are metaphorical.** *
U
Upgrade25
Guest
I’m playing devils advocate now. Why, then does the Mass include: “Almighty and ever-living God?”
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
Probably for the same reason. People don’t have to rack their brain to know what it means. It means He will always be there for us.
R
rossum
Guest
I am merely following the Bible, which is, I understand, authoritative for Catholics:
“My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.”
from Psalm 41:2 (Septuagint) / Psalm 42:2 (Masoretic).
rossum
- Status